celticshiva
RPG Townie
"Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me." --Mr. Scott
Posts: 296
|
Post by celticshiva on Jul 1, 2003 9:23:05 GMT -5
Liar. If you say freedom of speech is good and such, why would you ban me if I call you names? ore stuf..? I think in this case it comes down to authority. When we post we are on Kamau's 'property' so to speak (even though we are hosted by proboards), and we have to abide by their rules. Basically 'free speach' becomes limited when you are a guest of someone else. If you offend someone in their home they have a right to send you away. If a site like the above has their own hosting, they are not breaking the 'rules' of their hosting provider or their ISP, then its different. Honestly, the word 'f*g' dosn't bother me. And I thought 'thingy' was slang for a certain (lower) female body part.
|
|
|
Post by Chickensoupcheese on Jul 1, 2003 12:45:07 GMT -5
I thought 'thingy' was slang for a certain (lower) female body part. It is, I dunno why he's included it as the type of insult that one would use against homosexuals. Personally, I don't normally respond to verbal abuse: it doesn't affect me physically, and so in a very physical sense, causes no pain. It's when things start to get violent when I object. Perhaps the only exception would be that I feel hurt when people take the easy way out of seeing what I am before seeing who I am: that kinda hurts. A form of prejudice, I suppose. I personally would put homosexuality into the "disadvantaged" labelling, because although I would think most homosexuals are fine in every other way, they are seen as being disadvantaged mentally. I said before that they cannot help who they are; it's the same with other people you perhaps may sympathise, with. You could either see it that way, or you could always state that homosexuals are the scapegoat of a world that is distraught at the disapproval of racism against people of other cultures. Although in some kind of sense, homosexuals are still part of one big community; they all share a common interest. Going back to my "verbal, who cares, physical is when it gets serious" clause further up: are homosexuals being who they are causing any physical distress to anybody? Emotional distress perhaps, although if you asked your average homophobe, the reply to why would be "it's not normal", and never any better thought out than that. In a world of violence, love can be the only thing that saves many people. Why are homosexuals persecuted just because their idea of what makes them happy is a little different to what we'd consider 'normal'?
|
|
|
Post by Nuno on Jul 2, 2003 8:52:31 GMT -5
I don't get your point...
|
|
Zheil
RPG Townie
Posts: 920
|
Post by Zheil on Jul 26, 2003 11:09:13 GMT -5
I don't hate or disapprove of homosexuals, I just think it's kind of creepy...
Now just imagine 2 guys making out.
That's why.
|
|
Kuja
RPG Townie
I have no idea what that was meant to be ^^^
Posts: 887
|
Post by Kuja on Jul 26, 2003 11:29:10 GMT -5
Everytime I read this thread I think why...and I finally worked it out (sort of). thingy means the same as girl thingy and people call someone a girl thingy if they're weak or a wimp and homosexuals are stereotypically portrayed as being weak and cowardly.
Also, I agreee with Goldensan, I don't mind gay people but when I see them making out it does shock me for a couple of seconds.
|
|
Zheil
RPG Townie
Posts: 920
|
Post by Zheil on Jul 27, 2003 2:14:36 GMT -5
I brought it up because that Beautiful video by Christina Aguilera... AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I'M STRAIGHT!
I can tell you one thing, she's not beautiful...
|
|
Kuja
RPG Townie
I have no idea what that was meant to be ^^^
Posts: 887
|
Post by Kuja on Jul 27, 2003 14:02:35 GMT -5
That and all of her new videos are just marketing ploys. Dirrty obviously appealed to the 'straight guy' population and the 'independant woman' population. Beautiful then appeals to the 'gay guy' population and the 'social outcast' population.
|
|
|
Post by Shiguru Wazzat on Jul 27, 2003 14:40:37 GMT -5
CSC talking about the phrase 'thingy' being slang for "A certain (lower) body part of a female": It is, I dunno why he's included it as the type of insult that one would use against homosexuals. Maybe thingy is used to insults gay people because it's part of a female body, and gay people like men. And I whole heartedly agree with Kuja on Christina Aguilaras marketing scheme
|
|
Tosentu
RPG Townie
"I shall kill till the world knows how it is in your own Silent Hell!"
Posts: 77
|
Post by Tosentu on Jul 28, 2003 3:24:44 GMT -5
I am a jehova witness and I believe it is a sin for gay people to do what they do, but on the other hand I don't believe they should be looked down upon because of this. If you have no moral stand point on life then you would love the GHF site and any other sites like it, but if you have enough moral in your mind and in your soul then you would want such garbage off our internet and off of our world. The people who made this kind of stuff is seriously abusing their free speech, cause as Buster Man Zero said: I believe in free speech, but there is a limit. I believe the people who died for us to even be free, expected a country where someone may be their self without being severly disciminated for it and to have young people, as much of us are, to grow up and make our society better for this country and even our world and not to allow such ugliness to occur anymore.
And if you read my post and believe what I say is wrong and you like the GHF site, and you tell everyone this, then you are only helping me proof my point. And another thing, if you people who created this site and many other ugly sites just like it, I say to you, what every person who thinks the way I do or shares my views. I hope you find hell the hottest structure of darkness you every go to! And if you guys from the GHF site would like to reach me directly and tell me something then email me at: drenzyboy1999@yahoo.com.
If you read my post and agreed with me thank you, and if you didn't agree then I guess thats just your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 31, 2003 12:55:23 GMT -5
Do you have any arguments for homosexuality being immoral? Or are you simply going to state "The Bible (err... the modified Bible JWs use, that is) says so, so it must be right!".
Bald assertions with nothing to back it up doesn't make it so. If I, for example, say "If you have no moral standpoint on life then you are a Christian, JW, etc." then I must show *WHY* this is the case, not simply assume myself to be right. Without doing such, you are making no case for what you claim.
Yes, there are limits to free speech, however, they are not going beyond them. They have produced a website stating their beliefs (and providing a support for them) that does not endanger the lives of others and puts people under no obligation to view their website.
Problems exist if we censor the GHF site simply for its stance. In that case, suppose I then claim "Christian websites are offensive and garbage because they state all non-Christian are immoral sinful wicked people who are going to burn in a lake of fire forever, therefore we must take these sites off the Internet" (which would undoubtedly fuel a Christian's belief that the world is out to persecute them. Heh.). Under the same reasoning you use to say GHF should be taken off the Internet, it equally applies against websites you wouldn't want removed. Where do we draw the line? On the websites *YOU* find offensive, Drenz?
Making a point implies you presented some arguments to support a position. You didn't.
|
|
Tosentu
RPG Townie
"I shall kill till the world knows how it is in your own Silent Hell!"
Posts: 77
|
Post by Tosentu on Jul 31, 2003 13:58:48 GMT -5
So you believe that the GHF site is a good website, because they back up their points? They are implying that god hates gay people. Not even I believe this is so. (( even though I am a Jehova Witness )) I believe that no one can actually say that. Only god himself can. Where do YOU draw the line at freedom of speech on the interenet, Sleepy?
|
|
Kuja
RPG Townie
I have no idea what that was meant to be ^^^
Posts: 887
|
Post by Kuja on Jul 31, 2003 16:57:52 GMT -5
Sleepy didn't say that it was necessarily a good website. He said that they at least backed up their opinions and that you are in no way forced to view that website.
He also said that although you may find the site offencive, why should it be shut down? If sites were to be shut down based on whether people like them or not then free speech on the interenet would be severely restricted as would the amount of websites there would be.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 31, 2003 23:19:23 GMT -5
As Kuja pointed out, you are putting words in my mouth. First off, I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't be able to even agree with their statement of "God Hates f*gs"! Secondly, as a consequentialist, I reject any religion-based morality because it is inherently subjective. Third, I can think of no real argument against homosexuality that does not come from a religious background.
In addition, I have never stated that attempting to support a position makes it desireable. What I merely pointed out you apparently assumed to mean something else.
However, this is nothing more than a Red Herring Fallacy which ignores the two arguments I raised in my post. Perhaps you might try addressing them rather than non-issues.
What you believe doesn't equal truth. Perhaps instead of once again making bald assertions about the GHF website being wrong, you might read through their material and construct logical arguments to show where they are wrong.
Do you believe the Bible is God's revelation to man?
I don't hold to censorship.
|
|
|
Post by Leviathan918 on Aug 1, 2003 16:24:54 GMT -5
I must say that every one of you sickens me in some way... Mostly though, it's those of you who don't really understand what you are talking about. So I'll tell you what. I'll set you straight (no pun intended).
For one, that website cannot be banned, even though what they are saying is absolutely 100% incorrect. Unless it speaks of doing evil to homosexuals (and I haven't looked at the whole thing), it isn't overstepping the boundaries.
Second, GOD DOES NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS. I am straight and a devout Catholic Christian, and I am familiar with both the chatechism and most of the Bible. The Bible does state that homosexuality exists, and does condemn it as backward, however it only says that (and this is paraphrasing) "a man is condemned only if he lay down with another man". Now simply put, this means that the actions of engaging in homosexuality are denounced and the participants are sinners. Homosexuality becomes for those individuals their cross to bear and they are called to chastity. This means to not engage the opposite sex in ANY passionate way. Homosexuals are not sinners just for being homosexuals, but only if they give in to their desires. God didn't intend for homosexuality to exist, which is why he gave Adam a WOMAN. However...
Since for some people the Bible isn't a source, because they don't believe any of it (and so obviously if someone doesn't believe in it, it doesn't exist) let's look at science. Yes, you heard right, a Christian used the "S" word. Believe it or not, Christians actually don't denounce science, and in many cases it coincides with what we believe. This excludes of course trying (and failing each time) to prove God does not exist, because he has to along with the uses of science for the wrong reasons (such as abortion, cloning, etc.). Okay, back to the science issue. Let's look at nature. In nature, homosexual animals do not exist. I know someone is going to come up with a bogus story that they do. But they bottom line is no homosexuality outside of human society. In nature, MALE animals use sex to reproduce with FEMALE animals. Females conceive children. Sex is used to create children. Men do not bear children. This is why men do not have sex with men, and women do not have sex with women. It's a matter of science. So, summarized: Men aren't allowed to engage in intercourse (which is ONLY intended for the purpose of reproduction) with other men and vice versa.
Third, Catholics and Christians in general do not look down on Homosexuals. There are many church funded programs that extend help to those individuals who seek it. I'll admit there are a lot of overenthusiasts who go too far. But on the whole, God teaches love of thy neighbor regardless of what their sexual orientation, and most Christians don't go too far. That said, all of you non-Christians who don't have any figment of an idea as to what you're saying had best stop bashing Christians.
Thanks for the time.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Aug 1, 2003 21:37:44 GMT -5
So happy to know I sicken you. Perhaps you might lay off the character assassination and "holier-than-thou" attitude. It gets old after meeting the 1000th person just like you.
I agree with the first sentence, though our conclusions of it being wrong obvious arise from other areas. Your second sentence shows you've obviously not even read their warning page, or you'd have attempted to rebut the reasoning behind their beliefs instead of following Drenz's path of bald assertions. As to the "doing evil to homosexuals", one might question whether your belief that they will burn for eternity in a lake of fire constitutes evil, though that's another discussion that if you wish to pursue, I will gladly take up with you.
First off, in order to be taken seriously in debate, you need to provide support for your claims. You invoke an appeal to authority fallacy by thinking that somehow having read the Bible or listening to your catechism makes your claim true. It doesn't- it's the reasons you list that determine whether your claim is supported.
As I suggested to Drenz, you might try showing how the GHF's reasoning is wrong. Given that I have better things to do than point out their reasoning for you, I'll simply wait to see whether you continue to make empty claims or try rebutting what they present.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with basic epistemology. If you care to discuss it, we can begin a new thread whenever you feel up to scratch on the matter. That, and atheists have arguments beyond your simple strawman.
Actually, Christians denounce science whenever it conflicts with their beliefs. It's why some Christians reject evolutionary theory, for example.
This is a non-issue. If you want to discuss whether abortion, cloning, euthanasia (and whatever else you want to drag up) are moral, begin a new topic. Secondly, as any religion-based morality is inherently subjective, god's existence has no bearing on whether any of the above are moral or immoral. This is because any morality where god is the basis for morality, it inevitably boils down to a form of Divine Command Morality. Assuming you're familiar with DCM, you should also be aware of the objections to them- in which case I will gladly listen to your counter to them.
(EDIT: If you play the Kreeft card on Euthypro, I will show where Kreeft goes wrong)
Granted, there are atheists who do think science can disprove the existence of god, but such is a mistake. You cannot show there is or is no god through the use of science- a supernatural being by definition cannot fall into a realm that strives to understand the natural world around us. At best, science can only provide an inductive argument for or against the existence of a specific god in which we have a description of how the natural world is.
By the way, you use the idea of "proof" incorrectly. Science doesn't prove things- it's inductive in nature, not deductive.
Matthew 5:28 says that a man who looks at a woman lustfully has committed adultery in his heart- do you have a good reason why, based upon Mt. 5:28, a homosexual looking at a man with lust wouldn't have committed homosexuality in their heart? If you continue reading the context of Mt. 5:28, you'll see the implications if you say no to my question.
If you even utter the "I believe in Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", you will suffer a long, painful death. ;D
That said, perhaps you might expound on how something can occur without an omniscient being knowing ahead of time what would occur, or how it could occur against the wishes of an omnipotent being?
As my access to my college library database is cut off 'til the start of school, I have no way of checking through credible biology journals to examine whether evidence exists to rebut you on the matter. I have found some articles in websites, but they lack the credibility to make a good argument. As I am not going to take the word of websites which lack such credibility at their word, for the moment I will concede the point (but I will bring it up against if I should find materials to the contrary).
Secondly, how exactly does this make homosexuality immoral? If you claim that because only humans engage in homosexuality and animals don't, and therefore homosexuality is immoral, then your reasoning is faulty. Humans are capable of rational thought and the ability to be ethical- animals aren't. If you hold to the argument above for that bit of reasoning (unnaturalness makes it immoral), you must also condemn other things that set humans apart from animals as immoral, which doesn't float.
That is a function of sex, but not an exclusive function. Sex is also performed for pleasure. In addition, in order for you to argue against homosexuality in a non-religious context, you'd have to show that having sex for pleasure is immoral (in which case, you would also have to believe a heterosexual person incapable of producing children is acting immoral when they engage in sex with a member of the opposite sex).
Considering you haven't rebutted the GHF's material, nor provided a strong argument against homosexuality without appealing to a religious context, you fail to make a good point. I fail to understand how pointing this out constitutes "bashing Christians", though perhaps you have a broader definition than I.
|
|